Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 11 (MP)

BASSU ALIAS BASANT v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2009-01-05

R.K.GUPTA

body2009
Judgment ( 1. ) THE present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment of his conviction and sentence passed by the Special (Sessions) Judge, Narsinghpur in Special Case No. 83/1994 whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 3 (1) (10) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Attrocities) Act (for short as "the SC and ST Act") and further convicted under Section 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC") and respectively sentenced to one years R. I. with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default R. I. for three months and six months R. I. with fine of Rs. 500/- in default R. I. for 1 months; both sentences to run concurrently. ( 2. ) PROSECUTION story, in short, is that the first information report was lodged by the complainant Mannulal at police station kareli, Dist. Narsinghpur alleging that the appellant has threatened him of dire consequence and has also abused him. It is also alleged in the first information report (Ex. P-1) that the accused has addressed the victim by using the words "chamra chamariye" and further warned him not to enter his farms, failing which serious consequences will follow. The police after necessary investigation launched prosecution against the appellant-accused. ( 3. ) IT is seen in the present case that though an offence punishable under Section 294 of the IPC was also framed and tried against the appellant but the trial court has acquitted the appellant of the said charge but convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 3 (1) (10) of the SC and ST Act and further convicted under Section 506 (2) of the IPC. On behalf of the appellant it is stated that Mannulal (PW-1) who has lodged the first information report, in his statement does not state that the present appellant has used the words "chamra Chamariye" with an intention to cause annoyance or humiliation to him. It is further contended that the appellant has already been acquitted of the offence under Section 294 of the ipc. It is further contended that the appellant has already been acquitted of the offence under Section 294 of the ipc. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon para-11 of the judgment passed by this Court reported in 2005 (4) MPLJ 363 (Jasrath Singh and another vs. State of M. P.) wherein this Court has held that calling a person from the caste name should be with an intention of causing insult or humiliation to constitute the offence under Section (1) (x) of the SC and ST Act. In the instant case, the statement of Mannulal (PW-1), who has lodged the first information report, only states that there was some dispute going on with reference to the land of the accused. He further stated that on the date of incident the accused came with a revolver and threatened him with dire consequences and further threatened not to enter in the farms. This witness also states that he was motherly abused and also addressed by the present appellant as "chamra Chamariye". There is nothing in his statement that the alleged words used by the appellant caused any annoyance or humiliation to the complainant in a place within a public view. ( 4. ) THE statement of Sevak (PW-2) who is said to be an eyewitness is also relevant in the case. This witness does not state anything in his statement that the appellant used the words "chamra Chamariye" while addressing the complainant. Kallu Sardar who has been examined on behalf of the prosecution as PW-3 though appears to be an eyewitness but he does not state anything that the appellant has used the words "chamra Chamariye" to the complainant. Purshottam, who has been examined on behalf of the prosecution as PW-4, in his statement has stated that the accused has used the words "chamra Chamariye" to the complainant but there is nothing in his statement that these words caused any annoyance or humiliation to the complainant mannulal. ( 5. ) AN analysis of the aforesaid facet reveals that Sevak (PW-2) and Kallu Sardar (PW-3) in their statements before the Court have not stated anything that the alleged words were even used by the appellant to the victim Mannulal. ( 5. ) AN analysis of the aforesaid facet reveals that Sevak (PW-2) and Kallu Sardar (PW-3) in their statements before the Court have not stated anything that the alleged words were even used by the appellant to the victim Mannulal. So far as Purshottam (PW-4) is concerned, though he states that the aforesaid words were used by the appellant but he has not stated that use of the aforesaid two words have, in any way, caused annoyance or humiliation to the complainant. ( 6. ) ON basis of the testimony of the witnesses PW-2 and PW-3 it is clear that allegation and mentioning of the words "chamra chamariye" which are said to have been used by the appellant and referred to in the first information report and stated before the Court below by complainant Mannulal (PW-1) was fallacious and does not get any support from the statements of PW-2 and pw-3. In this reference, it is also relevant to take note that statements of PW-2 and PW-3 recorded under Section 161 of the criminal Procedure Code, also do not say that the words chamra chamariye were ever used by the appellant. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the trial court has wrongly convicted the appellant for the offence under ( 7. ) SECTION 3 (1) (10) of the SC and ST Act. The trial Court has further convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 506 (2) of the IPC. It is a case where only a threat was given of dire consequences but there is no overt act on the part of the appellant to give effect to the threat of dire consequences as alleged by complainant. Under these circumstances, the trial Court has also wrongly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 506 (2) of the ipc. ( 8. ) ON basis of the overall assessment of the case, as aforesaid, I am inclined to allow the present appeal and accordingly the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the appellant is set aside. The bail bonds furnished by the accused-appellant stand discharged. The present appeal is accordingly allowed.